Yes, although that's not surprising at all, since the ILC mirrorless business overall has been growing very rapidly (except for Q1 2013). In other words, I'd guess that everybody who makes mirrorless cameras probably had similar growth. (And just a note: these figures are revenues, not units. Always good to keep track of what the numbers represent.)

and up 25% in q4 of 2012

You mean Q4 of Olympus's FY 2013, which is Q1 of calendar year 2013 (i.e. the period from January 1, 2013 thru March 31, 2013).

Olympus appears to have done unusually well in that quarter, since the mirrorless ILC industry as a whole was down for that period year-over-year. (An alternate explanation is that they did unusually poorly in Q1 2012, so began from a very low baseline. Only way to really know whether they did well would be to get retail sales market share numbers for Q4 2012 and Q1 2013, but I'm willing to assume that they did at least reasonably better than most competitors.)

All that said, revenue and unit growth is good, but the business needs to be profitable, as all businesses must be.

In that vein, I noted with amusement that the Olympus shareholder who asked the question about mirrorless profitability at Olympus's presentation went on to express doubt that anyone was really making money on mirrorless ILC cameras (except, he said, he thinks Sony might be making a little). Even though a (female) translator was speaking for him (and now that I think about it, I'm just assuming it was a man), you could tell that he was exasperated that everyone referred to mirrorless ILC cameras as "high-margin" but the net profits were hard to find.